The importance of implant surface characteristics in the replacement of failed implants

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to compare the failure rates of implants with either a machined surface or a TiUnite surface used to replace failing implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The files of 578 patients, ie, of all patients who were treated at the Department of Periodontology of the University Hospital in Leuven by means of oral implants during 3 recent consecutive years, were analyzed. The implants included in the study had an observation time ranging from 9 to 49 months. All patients had been provided with Br?nemark System implants. Only 2 types of implant surfaces were used: machined and TiUnite. Data collection and analysis focused on the replacement implants, ie, implants placed at sites where the original implants had failed. Data were statistically analyzed by means of Statistica for Windows Software version 5.1; a Fisher exact P test was used. The level of significance was set at P = .05. RESULTS: A total of 41 patients experienced the nonintegration of 58 implants. Of those, 29 implants with a machined surface were replaced by implants with the same surface. Six of the replacement implants failed. Nineteen machined-surface implants were replaced by TiUnite surface implants; 1 failed. Ten TiUnite-surface implants were replaced by implants with the same surface; none failed. The difference in failure rate between machined-surface replacement implants and TiUnite replacement implants was statistically significant (P = .05). DISCUSSION: In addition to the usual patient-related compromising factors, replacement of a failing implant involves the challenge of achieving osseointegration in a nonpristine bone site. In the present study, implants with TiUnite surfaces were associated with fewer failures than machined-surface implants under the same conditions. CONCLUSION: An improved implant surface such as TiUnite may offer a better prognosis when a failed implant has to be replaced at the same site.     

Perampanel for the treatment of people with idiopathic generalized epilepsy in clinical practice

Objective

This study was undertaken to evaluate perampanel (PER) when used under real-world conditions to treat people with idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) included in the PERaMpanel pooled analysIs of effecTiveness and tolerability (PERMIT) study.

Methods

The multinational, retrospective, pooled analysis PERMIT explored the use of PER in people with focal and generalized epilepsy treated in clinical practice across 17 countries. This subgroup analysis included PERMIT participants with IGE. Time points for retention and effectiveness measurements were 3, 6, and 12 months (last observation carried forward, defined as "last visit," was also applied to effectiveness). Effectiveness was evaluated by seizure type (total seizures, generalized tonic–clonic seizures [GTCS], myoclonic seizures, absence seizures) and included ≥50% responder rate and seizure freedom rate (defined as no seizures since at least the previous visit). Safety/tolerability was monitored throughout PER treatment and evaluated by documenting the incidence of adverse events (AEs), including psychiatric AEs and those leading to treatment discontinuation.

Results

The Full Analysis Set included 544 people with IGE (51.9% women, mean age = 33.3 years, mean epilepsy duration = 18.1 years). At 3, 6, and 12 months, 92.4%, 85.5%, and 77.3% of participants were retained on PER treatment, respectively (Retention Population, n = 497). At the last visit, responder and seizure freedom rates were, respectively, 74.2% and 54.6% (total seizures), 81.2% and 61.5% (GTCS), 85.7% and 66.0% (myoclonic seizures), and 90.5% and 81.0% (absence seizures) (Effectiveness Population, n = 467). AEs occurred in 42.9% of patients and included irritability (9.6%), dizziness/vertigo (9.2%), and somnolence (6.3%) (Tolerability Population, n = 520). Treatment discontinuation due to AEs was 12.4% over 12 months.

Significance

This subgroup analysis of the PERMIT study demonstrated the effectiveness and good tolerability of PER in people with IGE when administered under everyday clinical practice conditions. These findings are in line with clinical trial evidence, supporting PER's use as broad-spectrum antiseizure medication for the treatment of IGE.